Who Directs The popes speeches?

[BJRumph]

There is no possibility for a supposedly enlightened, intelligent, civilized, rational, and peaceful people, as the muslims would have us believe, to misunderstand the intent or even content of what the Pope had to say, unless there is a deliberate intent to do so.

The real crime here is, that if it weren’t for the vocal radicals whipping them into as much fervor as they do us, I do believe that they would be as peacful a people as any/all are.

 

[The_Catholic]

Have you actually read the speech? I think it was brilliant and right on target. It makes me want to be Catholic, not the reverse!

My one criticism would be that the Pope should have spoken more explicitly of Christian use of violence in the past. But his remarks about Islam were moderate and fair. The Islamic response eliminates any doubts I might have had of this!

Then point out the error in what the Pope said. The Pope invited Muslims (and everyone else) to a dialogue based on the conviction that reason is an expression of God’s nature. He pointed out elements in Islamic tradition that deny this and teach that God is somehow totally beyond reason. If he was wrong, Muslims should show him that he was wrong by rational argument, either pointing out his erroneous interpretation of the Islamic thinkers he’s referring to or proving that these thinkers are not truly representative. That they respond by violence is not his fault.

I don’t know what wars are being waged in the name of Christianity right now. I know there are some Baptist guerrillas in India, but other than that. . . .

Christianity has been guilty of plenty of violence in the past, and Christian indifference to or support of secular violence today is reprehensible. But right now it is Muslims who are engaging in widespread religious violence. To blame the Pope for trying to engage the causes of this violence rationally is a classic case of blaming the victim.

With all due respect, I don’t think colour and faith can be equated. Religion cannot be treated as immune from criticism–this isn’t good for any religion. Christianity has been able to purify itself from much of its past violence largely because of the breakup of religious monopoly in Europe and the fact that no Christian body is immune from criticism. Some Catholics do try to make this move, at least in the U.S., but it’s a bogus one (claiming that whenever their Church is criticized they’re being the victims of something analogous to racism). The Pope made a rational critique of an element in Islamic thought. By no stretch of the imagination is this in any way analogous to racial prejudice.

And that’s reprehensible. But who is actually doing the bombing? Isn’t that far more reprehensible?

Can’t you see that the Muslim reaction to the Pope’s speech shows just how relevant it is? If the Pope’s speech were irrelevant, there would have been no violent reaction to it.

How can you defend your logic here? You seem to be arguing like this:

1. The Pope said Muslims are violent
2. Muslims reacted violently
3. Therefore, the Pope’s remark were false or erroneous or both, or
4. The Pope’s remarks caused Muslim violence

If you tell me, “You should get some psychological help, because I notice that you hit people whenever they criticize you,” and I respond by punching you in the nose, haven’t I just proven how badly in need of help I am?

Edwin

Ease up man, he already fessed up to his mistakes.

 

[Liberian]

Free Soul Hope,

The question comes down to this: are we to live our lives tiptoeing around the militant Muslims (and I restrict this to militants), afraid to say anything that might possibly be interpreted as negative about Mohammed and Islam? I have lived that way–as have you or your parents, depending on how old you are–and have no desire to start doing it again. The Western world has gone down the road of appeasement before and it led to disaster.

• Liberian